This past week my presentation group met to decide which
criteria we should use to evaluate the final six organizations. We ended up with community need,
sustainability, cost-effectiveness, impact, and grant money use. Equally important to note was that we did not
include core values as one of the criteria.
At this point in the process many people in the class feel some sort of
connection to some of the organizations. We would not have picked these
organizations if we did not feel that they were satisfying some sort of emotional
core value we shared. That is why our
group chose the criteria we did because they are all factors that require
logical arguments that are relatively more objective than core values. Professor Campbell often states,
“philanthropy is emotion constrained by reason.” I think that emotion is what drove us to pick
the top applicants and now we have to be smart and rational about whom we give
the grant money to. In class sometimes
people may like or dislike an organization based on a “gut-feeling.” However, I think that to make an informed
decision, we need to be more careful and have reasonable arguments when
deciding. Do you guys agree or think
that emotion and passion will ultimately drive our final grant decision?
One of the readings we had to look at recently was a blog on
Give Well about the different types of giving: passive, rational, and
quantified (http://blog.givewell.org/2013/08/08/passive-vs-rational-vs-quantified/). While quantified would be one of the best
ways to make a decision, it is impractical because not all of the accessible
information on the organizations is quantified or measurable. Rational is the
better alternative because it is a happy medium between passive and quantified. It requires effort and a bit of digging to
obtain valuable information, although the information does not necessarily have
to be quantified. For example, we talked
about how valuable feedback from participants or clients of an organization can
be. While that is not a measurable piece
of information, it can still provide insight into the charity and evidence that
the organization is making a positive difference. What kind of giving do you
think we should utilize? Maybe there’s a different approach besides the three
mentioned in the article that you prefer.
In addition, I liked how the article stated that rational
giving could actually be more of the emotional giving as opposed to the passive
approach because rational giving indicates that the person is more invested in
the situation. I think that this
relates to our class because we are each emotionally invested in many of the
final organizations due to our core values and personal experience, yet we also
have to be wise about the decision we make especially since it’s $10,000 and
not just a few bucks. It is similar to how
one might take more time when purchasing a car or computer than when purchasing
food or socks. This grant money is large
enough that it can significantly benefit an organization. This is why I believe we need to be rational
when making the final decision. We need
to make sure that we are giving to organizations that are most effective in
addressing a community need. This could even
mean donating to an organization that may not necessarily be the one that we
are most passionate about, but is doing the most good for what the community
needs. Do you guys agree? Would you be willing to sacrifice one of the
organizations that you are very emotionally connected to if it meant that the
money would be going toward a different organization (one that you are still emotionally
connected to, but to a lesser extent) that might use the money in a more
effective way?
I think that values will always be driving philanthropy, whether that means in the class or in the rest of the world, as emotion is an important part of wanting to give in the first place. We need emotion in order to push ourselves to do the research necessary to find the best possible organizations. This could mean finding the organization that does the best job at fulfilling the community need we want to work on, and I think that is what we did in determining our finalists. We saw from the applications that there were a bunch of organizations that fulfilled the same need, but we narrowed it down to the ones that were the best. Also, if we deeply care about a cause, it will inspire us to find out more facts to support our arguments for or against an organization, which, in turn, makes the decision more rational.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, it is in the interests of the class that we actually refrain from putting into any emotion into these final decisions, as that stage of the process has pretty much been completed. We have to look at these organizations objectively, as they are all great organizations, and the money would be going to a good cause no matter what. The point here is that we would like the money to be used to its full potential. We have to look at all the finalists and figure out where that would happen, and the best method is to look at these organizations rationally.
To answer your final question, I would be happy to see the money go anywhere that it is needed, but I am going to fight hard to see that my organization gets the money it needs. I've become dedicated to FPSCNY, and I feel that what they do is vital to the community, and I am ready to fight for that. I'm not willing to sacrifice anything, but in the event that the class doesn't agree with me, then I will still support our eventual final decisions, because these organizations will have more money than they had before, and we will be bettering the community around us. This is something that most people won't get to do in their college career, and I am still grateful for the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of the people living in our community.
I agree with you, Lauren, when you say that core values have already influenced our decision making. In order to pick our finalist organizations, many of us persuaded the class because of a personal connection with the organization, such as the zoo, or just because we believe that this organization can positively affect the community.
ReplyDeleteFor our decision on who to give the grant money to, I believe it is important to check out the websites such as Charity Navigator and Give Well in order to investigate how successful the organizations are and how well they use their money. In addition, it is important to look at how they plan on using their grant money. Some final organizations were asking for our grant money to pay their staff. I believe that in order to successfully affect the community, our money needs to go to a project that will directly impact the individuals rather than paying staff so the organization can stay afloat.
I also believe in taking the rational approach in order to determine our finalists. If someone is invested in an organization and believes heavily on the work they do, they will be more inclined to fight and defend the organization when it comes to our class making decisions. If we did not have anyone who deeply cared about a specific organization or cause, we would not get things done and it would be extremely difficult to come up with a few organizations to give our grant money to.
With that said, I believe it is important to put our own beliefs aside and truly fight for an organization that does the best for the community. For example, CHOW is asking us for money to pay operating fees and to pay their employees. While I think CHOW is an amazing organization, I would rather see our grant money go directly to the community, such as Family Planning. Our grant money would help purchase condoms to avoid unwanted pregnancies in teenagers and adults. For this reason alone, I think that Family Planning is more deserving of our money than CHOW.
Lauren, I agree with you that the core values should not be a specific criteria when choosing the final organizations. As you and Ryan stated above, our core values were a large part in choosing our finalists and whichever finalists are chosen they will have been influenced by our core values in some way. We need to gather the facts now and make the best possible decisions based on the facts. It is important to note that the "facts" do not have to be only number based. In addition to numbers, they can be assessments of various kinds (community needs, health of organization, etc.) and testimonials.
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree with Kayleigh on two of your points. I do not believe that we should be looking at Charity Navigator or GiveWell for our decision. Perhaps some of the blogs on GiveWell might help, but the organizations that GiveWell focuses on are much larger and deal with a more international focus. It would be absurd if we based our decision on their top picks or much of their methodology because the organizations we are looking at do not have the funds available to them to do the assessments that GiveWell requires and uses to deem an organization efficient. . They are very different organizations. As for Charity Navigator, none of the 6 finalist organizations are rated by the website, making any of their statistics relatively irrelevant. Many times this was because the organizations we looked at were too small.
The point I more disagreed with is when Kayleigh said that "Family Planning is more deserving of our money than CHOW." No organization is more deserving than any other organization. Saying an organization is more deserving is similar to saying that a certain cause is more deserving than another. I believe that feeding the hungry is just as important, and deserving, as providing condoms to those who can't afford them. Both provides a necessary service to society, but they are two completely different services. It is an injustice to say that one deserves money more than the other because it is essentially discrediting the other's service. I may not necessarily believe that the Zoo should be a grant recipient but that does not mean I believe that the Zoo is not a deserving cause or organization. They provide an educational and conservation service and this is important to the community. It just does not hold has high of priority as the other organizations do, in my opinion.
I think our values have gotten us to this point and now we need to use reason to narrow down which organization to fund. Emotion and passion is what drove us to choosing these six organizations. Now we have to do the research and make valid, reasonable arguments as to why we should fund an organization. Emotion and ‘gut feelings’ can still be used in this final process however I think doing extensive research on each organization will allow us to make an informed decision.
ReplyDeleteGive Well does provide a good way of getting information about organizations. However, I do agree that not all information on this site is measurable or quantified. You cannot measure the improvement of a person seeking mental health in numbers. If you want to know information that you cannot find simply ask. If an organization refuses to give information then I think that would make me lose interest. It would also be a question unanswered and could sway someone to choose to donate elsewhere. I agree, that asking for feedback from participants, clients and even staff does qualify as important information. It is important because it shows that the organization is trying to improve it’s services in order to be most effective. They are taking into consideration what their weaknesses and strengths are.
You’re right, in order to pick an organization(s) we really need to be wise and careful because the $10,000 could really impact an organization. Emotions and personal experience are important but making a rational valid argument for an organization gives everyone more of a reason to choose it. We need to keep in mind that we are trying to benefit the community as much as we can. I want to donate to the organization(s) that is going to do help the most despite my personal feelings. It should not be how we feel about the organization but what would be best for the community and what would make an impact.
I am obviously very emotionally invested in the zoo. But I agree that emotion got us to where we are now, and that the only way to make a decision is to use reason. All of the organizations are deserving, and most have someone who is strongly advocating for them. If we were to continue using emotions, we would never reach a compromise and make a decision. I could easily (and really want to) argue for days about why the zoo is amazing and deserves the money. But I know that the zoo hurt their chances with their presentation. I don't agree with their choice of who they sent to do the presentation, and I think it has cost them their chance.
ReplyDeleteI could spend a lot of time and energy trying to once again convince everyone that the zoo needs the money, but it is time to look at the situation using reason. The zoo and it's programs will not fail without the money, as Dave himself said during the presentation. Does that mean they are not deserving of our grant money? No. Would I be incredibly happy if they received the money? Yes. But I recognize that while the money would impact the zoo positively, it would not impact them as deeply and fundamentally as it would the other organizations. It is hard for me to admit this, seeing as I love the zoo and, being their biggest supporter, this next sentence is probably the kiss of death for their chances: Rationally, the zoo does not need the money as much as the other organizations and probably should not receive the grant money. It's hard to say that, and my emotions are telling me to erase that sentence and write an entirely different blog post, but it is true.
Emotions got us here, and now is the time to put them aside and work with reason. For a lot of the people in the class, that might not mean putting aside their favorite organization, but for me it does. It's really hard but sometimes it needs to be done.
I feel as though, as we were dwindling done the organizations to the finalists we have now, more logic was used rather than emotion. We have gone through a lot of applications to prove the worthiness of these organizations to become finalists, and up until this point we have used reason to state our cases. There is definitely an emotional connection with these last six organizations (since we have hand chosen them) but I see nothing wrong in that. I believe all six of these nonprofits are effective in what they do and are passionate about their missions equally, so the last thing to factor in would be the emotion.
ReplyDeleteIt is almost as though going with the emotional decision would be easier. To compare these organizations is kind of unfair; they're all so different and are fighting different things. It's like choosing which problem in Binghamton needs to be solved more, or which organization is more deserving. They are all deserving. So choosing based on who made the biggest impression or who we like better based on their in-class presentations isn't so bad. We are choosing to give away a lot of money so there should be no shame in having an emotional connection with the nonprofit we give to.
-Chelsea Desruisseaux
Something that I thought of when reading your blog post Lauren is that the answers to your questions would be different if this were one of my classmates personal philanthropy as compared to a class' philanthropy.
ReplyDeleteIn our class a balance of emotion and reason drove us to where we are now. I would argue the emotional side was a bit more influential, as evidenced by the big swing in favor of the zoo which was driven by Sarah's passion as well as empathy towards animals that the class felt they had ignored. In this final stretch, however, we have to use reason. It is impossible to have all 25 of our core values and emotional connections match up, as every group discussion and presentation that required narrowing down the pool of charities suggested. Therefore, no matter which charities we choose, we will still have some people unhappy. The best thing to do is at least make sure that we choose charities that we feel do a good and efficient job addressing key needs, using the many varied methods discussed in class. I disagree with Chelsea here, to say you can't compare things with two different missions is naïve. Yes you can't compare them in some areas, but in terms of efficiency, size, effectiveness, you most certainly can. Also, no charity is perfect, so to flat out say "yea all are efficient lets pick the one we like best" is again naïve and silly.
If this were our personal philanthropy this decision would be a bit easier in my opinion. This emotion vs. reason problem is more prevalent in our class because there is a need for a consensus to be found among 25 differing opinions. This leads to the need for compromise, and eventually for some to feel unhappy. If it was just lets say me giving away $10,000, I wouldn't have to worry about being disappointed because I wouldn't even be looking at a charity if it didn't fit my core values. If it was just me it would be a much more clear-cut formula. Emotion guides the field in which I look to donate then reason picks the most efficient of the options. In the class, we have to find an emotional balance as well as a logical one because there isn't one unanimous emotional stance. This is sure going to be a tough decision, and quite an interesting one to watch unfold in class.